Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:56, 20 March 2020 editQwirkle (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,817 edits Reverted good faith edits by Joeyconnick (talk): Given how often the same ground is covered, and how many disputes remain open, is this a good idea? (TW)Tag: Undo ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:44, 15 February 2024 edit undo2600:1700:22f0:59ef:4f3:7347:708b:6426 (talk) →"Urban Legend"?: new sectionTag: New topic
(28 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject California\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Trains\|class=C\|importance=high\|streetcars=yes\|subway=yes\|portaldykdate=October 16, 2017}}
	{{WikiProject Buses\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Business\|class=C\|importance=mid}}
	}}
	{{oldpeerreview}}
	{{Old AfD multi		{{Old AfD multi
	\| date = May 1 2013		\| date = May 1 2013
	\| result = '''keep'''		\| result = '''keep'''
	\| page = General Motors streetcar conspiracy		\| page = General Motors streetcar conspiracy
			}}
			{{oldpeerreview}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
			{{WikiProject California\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Trains\|importance=high\|streetcars=yes\|subway=yes\|portaldykdate=October 16, 2017}}
			{{WikiProject Buses\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=mid\|American=y}}
			{{WikiProject Business\|importance=mid}}
	}}		}}
	<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config		<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 27:		Line 27:
	{{Archive box\|auto=yes}}		{{Archive box\|auto=yes}}

	== ~~Non~~ ~~neutral~~ ==		== Off Topic ==

			It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.
	Springee attempted to remove the non-neutral tag. There is no improvement in the tone of the article. It continues to suffer from the years of overt ] of Anmccaff. Undoing any of this non-neutral content has proven impossible vs his overwhelming forcefulness. His obnoxious might does not make it right. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
	:OK, I didn't realize this was still an active issue. Thanks for adding the talk page comment. ] (]) 04:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

			: Look through the history of the article and this talk page to see that this has been brought up several times before, but always gets swept under the rug by a few people with single-minded resolve] (]) 11:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	*This page has over 50 sections and is tl;dr. Can someone please succinctly explain why there is a neutrality tag on this article? It is not normal for such a tag to be on an article for two years. ] (]) 15:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

			:Apparently it's actually the same person using multiple usernames and the issue has been going on for 5 years. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have any kind of report mechanism for these situations? ] (]) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
	:*I would second this. I have respect for all the parties involved (and have been involved myself). However, I've also been out of the loop long enough on this article to no longer recall what the issues were. Could we restart the process and try to sort things out a bit? Two years is a long time for a neutrality tag. ] (]) 04:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
			:it's not about the trial, it's about the conspiracy.
	::* is where the article was before Anmccaff got involved. I assume the subsequent edit that originally added the POV tag was him as an IP. In the subsequent 1,000 or so edits, most of the content in this article was reversed, previous sources removed and discounted (called discredited or debunked by Anmccaff). His POV has taken over the article. Any efforts to correct or add sources that do not agree with his POV have been rebuffed. It is an overwhelming task to try to begin the rewrite, made impossible when each step is reverted, with a lengthy, disjointed diatribe associated with each attempt. is but one example of my own attempt to start. Squashed from the word go. ]. Previous editors, including myself, have given up the effort. A few subsequent editors have cleaned up Anmccaff's poor editing style technically and have made minor revisions to his phrasing, but the essence of the content comes exclusively from the forceful opinion of Anmccaff. The lawyer like intimacy of his knowledge of this subject and his work to whitewash the record of the convicted conspirators, strongly suggests to me a ] situation, but of course I couldn't prove it. It is an ironic twist that the POV tag was added at the beginning of his devolvement of the previous version of the article. Now that the article totally reflects his POV, the tag is quite deserved. ] (]) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
			:a conspiracy has a context beyond the factual actions that were taken to further the goal.
	:::Certainly, as I read the article as it stands in October 2018, you get the impression that America lives in a parallel universe where all the usual definitions of monopolies, cartels, economic viability, public transport policies, etc., that apply elsewhere in the world, do not apply. Since that cannot be the case, non-neutrality must be at work. The archive version that Trackinfo links to, although much shorter than the current version, is far superior in its content and in the ordering of that content. ] (]) 16:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
			:this context also makes it a better encyclopedia entry. ] (]) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	== ~~Schramm excerpts.~~ ==		== Coachbuilt ==

	~~The~~ ~~web~~ ~~piece~~ on ~~Detroit~~ ~~appears~~ to be a ~~fairly~~ ~~faithful~~ ~~excerpting~~ of ~~published~~ ~~work;~~ ~~should~~ it ~~really~~ be ~~called~~ ~~"self~~ published", or ~~should~~ it be ~~seen~~ as a ~~convenience~~ ~~site~~ ~~for~~ a ~~less-available~~ ~~print~~ ~~source?~~ ] (]) 17:58, 11 ~~January~~ ~~2017~~ (UTC)		I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, {{ping\|JzG}}. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, ] is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. ] (]) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			:{{u\|Qwirkle}}, I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::{{u\|JzG}}, I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that . Theobald is a member of the , and was at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.<p>Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. ] (]) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::: {{u\|Qwirkle}}, Thanks, that's a helpful analysis. I do not object to this source and removal of the {{tl\|sps}} tag based on the above. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
			::::Thanks, {{u\|JzG}}. Would you mind self-reverting to the status quo ante? There Be Trolls in these woods, and I expect some sock would drag me off to ] if I were to do that. ] (]) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

			== Recent revert... ==
	== The ] is not a "self-published source" ==

			A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was . Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over '''3''' years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Misplaced Pages. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, ] (]) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
	Don't confuse a convenience cite with the material referenced. ] (]) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
			:Again, I’d disagree. These may not be ongoing discussions, but they reflect the ongoing disputes. ] (]) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

	== ~~Sourcing~~ ==		== First line issues ==

			the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"
	=== Book-length sources listed in "Further reading" not used in body of article ===
	* {{cite book \|author=Bottles, Scott L \|title=Los Angeles and the Automobile \|publisher=University of California Press \|year=1987 \|ISBN=0-520-05795-3}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Black, Edwin \|title=Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives \|publisher=St. Martins Press \|chapter=10 \|year=2006}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Goddard, Stephen B. \|title=Getting There: The Epic Struggle between Road and Rail in the American Century \|publisher=Basic Books \|year=1994}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Hanson, S. and Giuliano, G. editors \|year=2004 \|title=The Geography of Urban Transportation, Third Edition \|publisher=The Guilford Press \|isbn=1-59385-055-7}}
	* {{cite book \|title=Politics of land: Ralph Nader's study group report on land use in California \|year=1973 \|pages=410–414, 488 \|isbn=0-670-56326-9 \|publisher=Grossman Publishers \|author=Fellmeth Robert}}
	* {{cite book \|last1=Hilton \|first1=George W \|last2=Due \|first2=John F \|title=The Electric Interurban Railways in America \|publisher=Stanford University Press \|year=1960 \|isbn=0-8047-4014-3}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Kunstler, James Howard \|year=1994 \|title=The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape \|publisher=Free Press \|isbn=0-671-88825-0}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Lewis, John E. \|title=The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wYQ4AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT152 \|publisher=Constable & Robinson Ltd \|pages=152–62}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Norton, Peter D. \|title=Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City \|publisher=MIT Press \|year=2008 \|ISBN=0-262-14100-0}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Thompson, Gregory Lee \|year=1993 \|title=The Passenger Train in the Motor Age: California's Rail and Bus Industries, 1910–1941 \|publisher=Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH \|isbn=0-8142-0609-3}}

			Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. ] (]) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	=== Journal articles listed in "Further reading" not used in body of article ===
	*{{cite book \|author=Adler, Sy \|title=The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles \|publisher=Urban Affairs Quarterly \|volume=27 \|number=1 \|year=1991}}
	* {{cite book \|author=Fischel, W.A \|year=2004 \|title=An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for its Exclusionary Effects \|work=Urban Studies \|volume=41 \|number=2 \|pages=317–40}}

			:I suggest you read the entire article to answer your question. There were plenty of factors besides GM that led to the demise of trolley cars. ] (]) 17:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
	=== Individuals identified as topic experts in the lead not used in body of article ===

			::The fact that they are other factors doesn't mean this one wasn't influential. --] (]) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
	# Scott Bottles
	# Sy Adler
	# Jonathan Richmond

			:It's hard to sustain the purchase of a fraction of trolley systems by motor vehicle concerns as even a minor cause of the ] of the large majority of trolley systems, which were not purchased by NCL. Trolleys were viable in the period between the creation of the ] with the combination of sufficient torque and light weight, until the combination of the ], availability of ] for repair and refueling, and ] vehicles. After that time, trolleys became a ], e.g. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Portland. ] (]) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
	=== Top-cited source ===

			== Revert of “further reading” ==
	Meanwhile, the most frequently cited source in this article is a non-peer-reviewed, self-published PDF from a former academic currently a and sole proprietress of in Portland, Oregon:

			This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. ] (]) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	{{ cite web \| url = http://marthabianco.com/kennedy_rogerrabbit.pdf \| title = Kennedy, 60 Minutes, and Roger Rabbit: Understanding Conspiracy-Theory Explanations of The Decline of Urban Mass Transit. \| last = Bianco \| first=Martha \| format = pdf \| year = 1998 \| pages = 98–110 \| accessdate = 2008-09-23 \|ref = harv}}{{Self published inline\|certain=yes\|date=January 2017}}
			:{{u\|Qwirkle}}, seems fair. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

			== highly exaggerated or based on a ] fallacy. ==
	Statements attributed:

			This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. ] (]) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
	# "By 1930 most streetcar systems were aging and losing money. Service to the public was suffering; the Great Depression compounded this. Yellow Coach tried to persuade transit companies to replace streetcars with buses, but could not convince the power companies that owned the streetcar operations to motorize."
			:Ahh. That makes sense; I’d agree that the statement is a little strong for the lead, and maybe draws more of a conclusion than the cites alone would justify. Nuke it. ] (]) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
	# "GM decided to form a new subsidiary—United Cities Motor Transport (UCMT)—to finance the conversion of streetcar systems to buses in small cities. The new subsidiary made investments in small transit systems, in Kalamazoo and Saginaw, Michigan and in Springfield, Ohio where they were successful in conversion to buses."
			::{{ping\|Fettlemap}} that said, I think you will see that several excellent references already in the article, or referenced by it - Bianco, Post, Cudahy, Hilton, Richmond, Bottles, and Adler, e.g. all do adress the folkloric espect of the story. In other words, removal from the lead is justified not by the underlying facts, but by the state of the article. ] (]) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
	# "...was reorganized "for the purpose of taking over the controlling interest in certain operating companies engaged in city bus transportation and overland bus transportation" with loans from the suppliers and manufacturers."
	# "In 1939 Roy Fitzgerald, president of NCL, approached Yellow Coach Manufacturing, requesting additional financing for expansion..."
	# "...and the 1940s, raised funds for expansion from Firestone Tire, Federal Engineering, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Corporation), Phillips Petroleum (now part of ConocoPhillips), GM, Mack Trucks (now a subsidiary of Volvo)."
	# "Adding to the confusion, Snell had already joined the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly as a staff member."
	# "The 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, vectors the folktale about the decline of the Pacific Electric."

			A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. ] (]) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
	] (]) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

			== Unintended damage ==
	:erm.....so? Ms. Bianco made a career change; how would that invalidate her past work? Despite your frequent labeling of her work as "self-published" it was clearly written ex officio. ] (]) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

			{{Ping\|Trappist the monk}} In I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. ] (]) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
	*IP editor (HughD?), it would be best if you would create an account or use your existing account before making such extensive edits to the article. ] (]) 14:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

			==Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS==
	=== Self-published websites used as sources for statements in Misplaced Pages voice ===
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Stanford_University/CALIFORNIA_DREAMING,_THE_GOLDEN_STATE'S_RHETORICAL_APPEALS_(Spring_2023) \| assignments = ] \| reviewers = ] \| start_date = 2023-04-03 \| end_date = 2023-06-11 }}

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)</span>
	Despite the generous availability of reliable secondary and tertiary sources, as yet unused in this article, this article relies on self-published websites of transportation and history enthusiasts:

			== “Who Killed the…?” ==
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. ] (]) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 16:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

			== "Urban Legend"? ==
	Strack is -the- historian for certain aspects of Utah rail, and is reliably published.

			I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? ] (]) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
	Bianco is also reliably published; her own site is used for the reader's convenience.

	Detroit transit is, as mentioned before, a convenience cite for published work.

	The Yumpu piece is usable to document a particular view, I suppose, but it'd be nicer if it had an author and an original source.

	Coachbuilt has been found reliable for its own work on several occasions, and is only being used as a convenience cite.

	1134 speaks for itself.

	Historyisaweapon is also being used as a convenience cite.

	Convenience links are an accepted practice for access to material otherwise difficult for readers and researchers to get to. ] (]) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

	1134 looks like BS because it has a bunch of cheesy graphics, talks about tattoos, and 1134 is hell upside down. But the website creator (Stan) links to a "Letter to the editor" discussing the General Motors streetcar conspiracy which he allegedly published in the LA Times Nov 24 1999. Stan has plain text webpage on his site containing the letter. I tried searching for Stan's letter online, but was unable to find anything (though I might have missed it). Rather than linking to Stan's personal website, it would be better to link LA times section where Stan's letter was published.
	] (]) 03:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

	== Non neutral ==
	{{tlx\|Tone\|2=talk=Non neutral\|3=date=January 2017}}
	IP Guy, would you care to give an example or three? ] (]) 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

	== Recent revert without discussion. ==

	{{u\|Monopoly31121993}}, A "summary" should not change the meaning of the article, or misrepresent the sources. BRD...I haven't seen you addressing your desired changes here on talk, have I? ] (]) 14:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
	:The introduction should only re-state what is already in the article. It is not he right place for listing every city in the U.S. with or without streetcars. It needs to be cut down and summarize the main points of the article.] (]) 15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
	::It hardly lists "{{tq\|every city in the US with or without streetcars}}, does it? In fact, it mentions only the relatively small number which kept 'em up intil the present.
	::Yes, it needs to summarize the main points of the article, so removing some of those summaries, as you've done twice now, is a ]. The article covers a broad sweep of topics, some factual, some largely imaginary, and corralling them into a compact lead is not a simple matter of eliminating mention of some of them. ] (]) 15:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

	== Sacramento ==

	The image of streetcars and autos cavorting together in Sacto's ] aside, is Sacramento the best example of legitimate streetcar revival, and does the article need one? ] (]) 17:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

	I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425092145/http://www.cliffslateralso.com/TQOrigin.pdf to http://www.cliffslateralso.com/TQOrigin.pdf

	When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}

	Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

	==Lacking and dubious sources==
	This article uses a number of sources that can not be considered serious. The following list contains examples, starting from the chapter ''"Role in decline of the streetcars"''. The number refers to the number of the footnote in the article, comments are added in non-cursive text.

	* 63: ''"See elsewhere in this article for cited sources for all of these claims, notably in the 'other factors' section."'' - But where?
	* 64: See the comment on Bianco above.
	* 49: ''"Slater, Cliff (1997). "General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars" (PDF). Transportation Quarterly. pp. 45–66. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-25."'' - from the linked file: ''"Cliff Slater is a businessman with an interest in the economic history of U.S. public transportation. "''. According to , Slater is an anti-light-rail-activist.
	* 66 - , which seems to be the comment of a member of the public without any credentials in a relevant field.
	* 68 - , written by a journalist without any aparent expertise on the field.

	Thats hardly meeting the criteria from ]. I suggest to completely cut the chapter and to replace it with the following two chapters. I don't see why three seperate chapters with counterarguments are needed. -- ] (]) 00:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

	:Most of the sources I'm not really sure about. The Slater article seems RS to me. I'm not sure why we would assume Honolulutraffic.com is a RS for the reliability of Slater. On the other hand, Slater's article was published in a subject relevant journal ]. I agree that we don't know much about Guy Span. I would at least give the CBSNew Money Watch some weight until we have reason not to. This is one of those topics where we have limited sources so the sort of RSs we might normally want are harder to come by. That said, I agree that things needs some help here and thanks for taking a look. Which chapters are you referring to? If you are referring to the section "Role in decline of the streetcars" I think it should be kept since the big controversy part of the topic is how much GM did or did not cause the decline of streetcars. ] (]) 00:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
	:Looking at the hnolulutraffic site in more detail I don't think we can conclude Slater is an anti-light-rail-activist vs just someone against a particular light rail project. I suspect we might find a number of people who are for light rail and public transit programs who are say against the California high speed rail project based on the economics of the situation. Either way, it doesn't make them unqualified (or qualified) to speak on the subject. ] (]) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

	== Recent addition of Zearfoss ref. ==

	I think this needs discussion here, for three reasons.<p>First, a proceedural one. Adding a reference, especially one intended to make a different point, is ''never'' minor, even if it is short.<p>Hilton also responded to Zearfoss’s cavils, IMS, and Hilton is a far stronger authority. If you add one, you should add both.<p>Finally, where does Zearfoss go against the point Slater is cited for here, as opposed to the general effect of transit decline? ] (]) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

	== Begging the Question. ==

	{{tq\|General Motors used methods besides working directly through National City Lines (NCL) to perform bus conversions. For example, in March of 1938, NCL president E. Roy Fizgerald and four NCL employees met with Lexington KY entrepreneur Norman Smith at Smith's cottage on Herrington Lake, southwest of Lexington. Smith and his brother Leroy operated various transportation businesses around Lexington, and bought control of that city's transit system. Likely not coincidentally, the bus conversion in Lexington was performed later that year.<ref>{{cite journal \|title=Five Chicagoans Injured at Herrington Lake Blaze \|journal=Cincinnati Enquirer \|date=March 13, 1938 \|page=1}}</ref>}}
	{{reflisttalk}}

	This is only relevant if one assumes that Fitzgerald, who had been in the bus business before GM had, could only have been there as a pawn, which is nonsense. It also is being given undue prominence in the lead, and seems to be original research, not something already chewed over in scholarship. Finally, given Fitzgerald’s usual business model, how is it remarkable? ] (]) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

	by the way, is the first hit off a Duck-duck search for “Herrington Lake GM conspiracy”. Pure conspiraloon stuff. The second is ]. ‘Nuff said. The third is... surprise, surprise. The third is our local sockpuppeteer, Louis Guilbault. ] (]) 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

	== {{tq\|General Motors is not mentioned in removed photo.}} ==

	Yeah, that kinda sums up certain objections to the photo. @{{user\|Lexlex}}, could you explain why you feel something almost completely disconnected with any of the subjects of the article should be prominently depicted in the lead? ] (]) 13:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	== Coachbuilt ==

	I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, {{ping\|JzG}}. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, ] is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. ] (]) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
	:{{u\|Qwirkle}}, I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. ''']''' <small>(])</small> 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
	::{{u\|JzG}}, I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that . Theobald is a member of the , and was at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.<p>Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. ] (]) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:44, 15 February 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on May 1 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

General Motors streetcar conspiracy received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / Streetcars High‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 16, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Off Topic

It appears to me that most of this article is off topic, and displays a clear bias. This article should be specifically about the NCL trial, and the results of that trial. The history of electric transit, buses, etc. is given far more space on this page than the trial itself, and there is an abundance of material presented here that is basically just cherry picked opinion. This page needs a good cleaning and refocusing on the primary subject.

Look through the history of the article and this talk page to see that this has been brought up several times before, but always gets swept under the rug by a few people with single-minded resolve2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently it's actually the same person using multiple usernames and the issue has been going on for 5 years. Doesn't Misplaced Pages have any kind of report mechanism for these situations? 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5D41:23B2:3C8B:39DC (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

it's not about the trial, it's about the conspiracy.

a conspiracy has a context beyond the factual actions that were taken to further the goal.

this context also makes it a better encyclopedia entry. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Coachbuilt

I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, @JzG:. It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, Stephen King is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. Qwirkle (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. Guy (help!) 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but Mark Theobald is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that It may be a number of days, weeks or even months before the builder is updated with the new information. Theobald is a member of the Society of Automotive Historians, and was recognized by them at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.

Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. Qwirkle (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, Thanks, that's a helpful analysis. I do not object to this source and removal of the {{sps}} tag based on the above. Guy (help!) 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. Would you mind self-reverting to the status quo ante? There Be Trolls in these woods, and I expect some sock would drag me off to WP:ANEW if I were to do that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent revert...

A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was reverted. Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over 3 years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Misplaced Pages. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, I’d disagree. These may not be ongoing discussions, but they reflect the ongoing disputes. Qwirkle (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

First line issues

the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"

Anyone disagree? The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. 82.10.140.18 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the entire article to answer your question. There were plenty of factors besides GM that led to the demise of trolley cars. Indyguy (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they are other factors doesn't mean this one wasn't influential. --Ostream (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to sustain the purchase of a fraction of trolley systems by motor vehicle concerns as even a minor cause of the decline of the large majority of trolley systems, which were not purchased by NCL. Trolleys were viable in the period between the creation of the Traction motor with the combination of sufficient torque and light weight, until the combination of the Good Roads Movement, availability of gas stations for repair and refueling, and capable gas powered vehicles. After that time, trolleys became a novelty form of transit, e.g. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Portland. RussNelson (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert of “further reading”

This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. Qwirkle (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, seems fair. Guy (help!) 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

highly exaggerated or based on a correlation-equals-causation fallacy.

This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. Fettlemap (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. That makes sense; I’d agree that the statement is a little strong for the lead, and maybe draws more of a conclusion than the cites alone would justify. Nuke it. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: that said, I think you will see that several excellent references already in the article, or referenced by it - Bianco, Post, Cudahy, Hilton, Richmond, Bottles, and Adler, e.g. all do adress the folkloric espect of the story. In other words, removal from the lead is justified not by the underlying facts, but by the state of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A proper summary in the lead would be much more nuanced because there are good sources as you point out. It would not trivialize the scholarship with a content that reflects none of the sources conclusions. It should not sound like an eighth grade book report. Fettlemap (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Unintended damage

@Trappist the monk: In this edit I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid your edit because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhumstanford (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Osisbe.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

“Who Killed the…?”

There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here. 2405:9800:B910:DB49:6C81:5BEE:7198:B65D (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Urban Legend"?

I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:4F3:7347:708B:6426 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories: